Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***

Who did you vote for?

  • Labour

    Votes: 137 13.9%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 378 38.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 304 30.9%

  • UK Independence Party

    Votes: 27 2.7%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • Scottish National Party

    Votes: 10 1.0%

  • British National Party

    Votes: 20 2.0%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • DUP

    Votes: 4 0.4%

  • UUP

    Votes: 1 0.1%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 2 0.2%

  • SDLP

    Votes: 3 0.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 1.6%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 80 8.1%
  • Total voters
    985
  • Poll closed .
Neodite said:
The Conservatives were most popular in they got most seats yes, but Conservatives + Lib-Dems is not what people voted for.

Any changes that are needed/forces joined should mean a new election to see if thats what the PEOPLE want.

I for one dont want a Conservatives/Lib-Dem team.
Click to expand...

No, that's not an option on the ballot paper. I really wonder about people who go on about this. You voted for your local MP, end of story. And to make it worse you elected him as a representative not a delegate.

If you actually want a say in who takes power then you should logically be supporting electoral reform.
 
This notion conjoured up by the Labour spinsters that "most of the country voted against the Tories" is frankly beyond ridiculous.

I've got news for you anti Tory lunatics, more people voted 'against' Labour than voted 'against' the Tories, by far.

Therefore any statements along these lines are absolutely pointless spin that have no place in reality, it's meaningless. However, if it does mean something, it means more voted 'against' Labour than 'against' the Tories, so kindly give it up.

One million votes in Scotland got Labour 41 seats.
Six million votes in England got the Lib Dems 43 seats.

Does that mean a Scottish vote counts for more than an English vote?
 
bigredshark said:
Yes they won the most votes of any party, but attaching the kind of labels like 'clear preference' is false in my view as, when it comes down to it, two thirds of people voted for someone else.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on the 2005 election when Labour won a comfortable majority after 64.8% of the electorate voted for someone else?
 
avec said:
This notion conjoured up by the Labour spinsters that "most of the country voted against the Tories" is frankly beyond ridiculous.

I've got news for you anti Tory lunatics, more people voted 'against' Labour than voted 'against' the Tories, by far.

Therefore any statements along these lines are absolutely pointless spin that have no place in reality, it's meaningless. However, if it does mean something, it means more voted 'against' Labour than 'against' the Tories, so kindly give it up.

One million votes in Scotland got Labour 41 seats.
Six million votes in England got the Lib Dems 43 seats.

Does that mean a Scottish vote counts for more than an English vote?
Click to expand...

The exact figures I posted above the cost per seat for each party.

But I have to disagree in part, anecdotally a lot of people voted against the tories (and have for quite some time). There is plenty of tactical 'keep out the tories' voting going on but I'm struggling to think of a single place where tactical 'keep out labour' really happened on any scale.
 
Neodite said:
The Conservatives were most popular in they got most seats yes, but Conservatives + Lib-Dems is not what people voted for.

Any changes that are needed/forces joined should mean a new election to see if thats what the PEOPLE want.

I for one dont want a Conservatives/Lib-Dem team.
Click to expand...

People voted for who is going to represent them in parliament, and once in parliament their MP is expected to do what is in the national interest. People did not who vote for who is going to run the country.

The national interest requires a strong, stable leadership at the moment, not more uncertainty with another 6 weeks faffing for a new general election.

Even as a committed anti-Tory, there are only two options that satisfy the national interest imo.

a) A ConLib coaltion government, my preferred option because it gives more strength and stability, and what I think we are heading for.
b) A minority conservative government, which also requires LibDem agreement.

Despite the fact I voted LibDem, I have to concede their performance on election night was disappointing and therefore they aren't in a position to make too many demands. I expect Clegg now to prove to the electorate that he is capable of acting in the national interest and work with the Conservatives, keep an eye on them and make sure that they aren't too overzealous on public spending cuts.
 
gambitt said:
What are your thoughts on the 2005 election when Labour won a comfortable majority after 64.8% of the electorate voted for someone else?
Click to expand...

That Blair was a coward for stepping back from the results of the Jenkins Commission when he first took office and that the tories ran a hopeless campaign which failed to appeal to anyone who wasn't going to vote tory anyway? And that turnout was appalling?

It's difficult to compare then and now as the question was never really asked, labour won a clear majority of seats and weren't (Iraq aside) terribly unpopular so nobody was questioning it. I objected to voting for a labour candidate because the lib dems stood no chance in my constituency and the tory candidate was an idiot.

I've always been in favour of a more proportional electoral system so I'm not sure what you're asking here?

Was labour's win illegitimate? Well it wasn't a shining example of democracy obviously but there was a clear majority of seats which is what our electoral system is. There were plenty people questioning the lib dems vote share vs seats then but the party didn't have the profile for it to be seriously picked up.

If you want to question legitimacy you'd be better looking at 2001, only 1 in 4 register voters voted labour then and they secured a huge majority
 
Last edited:
It's all a load of tosh if you ask me, this first past the post malarky and everything.

More public voted for Conservative, and more people internally voted Conservative...So why the hell aren't they in?
 
Delvis said:
It's all a load of tosh if you ask me, this first past the post malarky and everything.

More public voted for Conservative, and more people internally voted Conservative...So why the hell aren't they in?
Click to expand...

Cos they can't form a government on their own. This is all perfectly normal in other European countries, it's quite funny the way there's a bit of panic in the air as Brits are out of their comfort zone.

Frankly I say it's about time the politicians were forced to stop acting like children and actually work together for the national interest.
 
Delvis said:
It's all a load of tosh if you ask me, this first past the post malarky and everything.

More public voted for Conservative, and more people internally voted Conservative...So why the hell aren't they in?
Click to expand...

More people that what voted conservative? More people than before - yes. More people than voted for any other single party - yes. But those figures are slightly fake, because there is no national vote. So why aren't they in - because that's not how our system works and never has been - if you want irony then go watch various tories defending that very system on tv!
 
scorza said:
Cos they can't form a government on their own. This is all perfectly normal in other European countries, it's quite funny the way there's a bit of panic in the air as Brits are out of their comfort zone.

Frankly I say it's about time the politicians were forced to stop acting like children and actually work together for the national interest.
Click to expand...

Heh indeed...If they all came together for once and got the best ideas out now we might actually be able to rebuild our economy and everything else with it...But as you say...they're all just big children fighting over a new toy :o

bigredshark said:
More people that what voted conservative? More people than before - yes. More people than voted for any other single party - yes. But those figures are slightly fake, because there is no national vote. So why aren't they in - because that's not how our system works and never has been - if you want irony then go watch various tories defending that very system on tv!
Click to expand...

True....It still baffles me though....Why on earth do people even both voting then? If their 'winning' vote does not even count towards anything?

Some people I know couldn't even vote for the damn party they wanted to because it wasn't on the ballot paper....Which in my eyes, is plain stupid
 
Delvis said:
True....It still baffles me though....Why on earth do people even both voting then? If their 'winning' vote does not even count towards anything?

Some people I know couldn't even vote for the damn party they wanted to because it wasn't on the ballot paper....Which in my eyes, is plain stupid
Click to expand...

Welcome to the UK electoral system.
 
Delvis said:
True....It still baffles me though....Why on earth do people even both voting then? If their 'winning' vote does not even count towards anything?

Some people I know couldn't even vote for the damn party they wanted to because it wasn't on the ballot paper....Which in my eyes, is plain stupid
Click to expand...

Good question, some constituencies this time round will have wasted close to 70% of votes (by wasted I mean they basically don't matter, have no affect on the result at all). That is scandalous (and why Labour won so easily on 35% vote share in 2005).

My vote didn't matter a bit, my (very good) MP increased his majority from 10,000 to 12,000 but it doesn't matter, even a majority of 1 would have sent him to parliament. So my vote for him along with 12,000 others in my constituency did not matter, if I'd stayed in bed it would have meant as much. (which is why the national polls are really rather fake and it hurts some parties more than others, the conservatives and lib dems tend to waste more votes in these situations than labour).

Electoral reform is the only way out of this problem, quite what form it takes I don't know but surely in some form it has to come (whether it's PR for the commons or PR for the lords and giving them power to block legislation properly again who knows).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom